How might Liberty University’s integration model be a challenge for you?
Assignment: Counseling And Family Studies
Permalink: https://nursingpaperslayers.com/assignment-model…d-family-studies/
Please follow DB instructions. I need for the DB to be answered for myself 400 words and 1 reply 250 words as if I am responding to my peers. immediate need for this assignment to be completed 10/2/18
APA format
Cited
After watching the presentation “The Integration Model of the Center for Counseling and Family Studies” and reading Chapters 1–3 of the Clinton & Ohlschlager text, answer the following questions:
In what ways are your own beliefs about integration similar and different from Liberty University’s?
How might Liberty University’s integration model be a challenge for you?
Compare your own beliefs about integration by replying to 1 of your classmate’s threads.
One example of interfaces are visibility modifiers in Java. They provide a means to restrict the access to members in a simple way. Another common example are ports, e.g., in composite structure diagrams, which explicitly define inter- action points and specify services they provide or need, thus declaring a more detailed interface of a part of a system.
3. DISCUSSION In the previous sections we introduced and categorized a
bundle of guidelines dedicated to different language artifacts and development phases. Some of them already contained notes on relationships with other guidelines and trade-offs between them, and some of them briefly discussed their im- portance in different project settings. However, the follow- ing more detailed discussion shall help to identify possible conflicting guidelines and their reasons and gives hints on decision criteria.
The most contradicting point is reuse of existing artifacts versus the implementation of a language from scratch (cf. No. 5, 6, and 7). The main reason for the reuse of a lan- guage or a type system is that it can significantly decrease development time. Furthermore, existing languages often provide at least an initial level of quality. Thus, some of the guidelines, e.g., guidelines which target at consistency (e.g., No. 21) or claim modularity (e.g., No. 25), are met auto- matically. However, reusing existing languages can hinder flexibility and agility as an adaption may be hard to realize if not impossible. The same ideas apply to an improvement of the reused language itself (e.g., to meet guidelines which were not respected by the original language): the implemen- tation of a single guideline may require a significant change of the language. Another important point is that this ap- proach may influence the satisfiability of other guidelines. One example is No. 14 which suggests the reuse of exist- ing notations of the domain. In case there are no languages which are similar to these notations, this guideline and lan- guage reuse are obviously contradicting. Furthermore, com- bining several existing languages may introduce conceptual inconsistencies, such as different styles or different underly- ing type systems which have to be translated into each other (cf., No. 5).
